2013 (7) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whose export was not permitted. Accordingly, the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 23-5-11 ordered confiscation of the goods with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and beside this, imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondent under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. This order passed by the Commissioner was examined by the Committee of Chief Commissioners and the Committee passed an order dated 3-11-2011 under Section 129D(1) of Customs Act, 1962 directing the Commissioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal for correct determination of the points mentioned in the order. The Committee of Chief Commissioners was of the view that the redemption fine and penalty, looking to the gravity of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is the date of communication of the order, that in any case, the reason for delay in review was that one of the Chief Commissioners was in Delhi and the other Chief Commissioner was at Chandigarh, that in any case, in view of the judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Raipur v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 239 (Tri. - LB), the Tribunal has powers to condone the delay in exercise of the powers by the reviewing authority under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, which are in pari materia with Section 129D(1) of Customs Act, 1962 and that in view of this even if there is delay in issue of the order under Section 129D(1) by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, the Tribunal has powers t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt in the case of C.C.E. v. M.M. Rubber Co. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.), in para 18 of its judgment on the question as to whether a review order issued under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after expiry of limitation period prescribed under Section 35E(3) is valid, has held thus :- "18. Section 35E comes under the latter category of an authority exercising its own powers under the Act. It is not correct to equate the Board, as contended by Sri Gaurishankar Murthy, to one of the two parties to a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Collector and the Board's right under Section 35E to the exercise of the right of appeal by an aggrieved assessee from an order passed to its prejudice. The power under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein and therefore invalid and ineffective." 6.1 The provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 and like Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 during the period of dispute prescribed the period of three months for issue of order by the Committee of Chief Commissioners under Section 129D(1). In this case, it is clear that the order of Committee of Chief Commissioners was passed after expiry of period of three months from the date of communication. There is no question of condoning by the Tribunal of the delay in exercise of the power by the Committee unde....